Pod Insights Casefile True Crime Case 341: The Christchurch Civic Creche About this episode *** Content warning: Child sexual abuse ***
Late in 1991, a child said something strange to his mother: ‘I don’t like Peter’s black penis.’ Believing this was an indication that her son was being abused by Peter Ellis, a 33-year-old employee at the Christchurch Civic Creche her son attended, the concerned mother quickly filed a report. The case would soon snowball into one of New Zealand’s biggest and most controversial criminal cases…
---
Narration – Anonymous Host https://www.instagram.com/caseys.snaps/
Research & writing – Erin Munro
Production & music – Mike Migas http://mikemigas.com/
Audio editing – Anthony Telfer
Sign up for Casefile Premium:
Apple Premium https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/casefile-true-crime/id998568017?ign-itscg=30200S&ign-itsct=casefile_podcastsSpotify Premium https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/9gSwcv7USsbPatreon https://www.patreon.com/casefileFor all credits and sources, please visit https://casefilepodcast.com/case-341-the-christchurch-civic-creche
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy https://acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript 14,803 words · 2 speakers
0:00 Speaker 00 From journalist Olivia LaVoix, the creator of the hit investigative series The Bakersfield 3, comes the new Casefile Presents series, Ada. In 2011, the body of a woman was discovered in a California vineyard. For more than a decade, she was known only as Jane Doe. Then detectives finally discovered her name. But identifying her was only the beginning. Listen to Ada wherever you get your podcasts.
0:45 Speaker 00 Our episodes deal with serious and often distressing incidents. If you feel at any time you need support, please contact your local crisis centre. For suggested phone numbers for confidential support and for a more detailed list of content warnings, please see the show notes for this episode on your app or on our website. This episode features distressing subject matter pertaining to the sexual abuse of children. It will not be suitable for all listeners. The names of several witnesses have been changed.
1:23 Speaker 00 In November of 1976, the Christchurch Civic Craysh on the South Island of New Zealand opened its doors for the first time and welcomed in children aged from 18 months to five years old. As an increasing number of women in New Zealand were returning to work after having children, there was a growing demand for early childhood education centres like the Civic Craysh. Located in the heart of the city, the Craysh was a collaborative undertaking by the City Council and the Christchurch Technical Institute.
1:56 Speaker 00 Over the next decade and a half, the Creche became so popular that parents would add their baby’s names to a waiting list upon birth in the hopes they would be accepted when they were old enough to attend. It was particularly popular with parents who worked in the many non-profit organisations that were based nearby, and the Creche attracted families who tended to be middle-class professionals with politically-liberal attitudes. It was open between 7.30am and 5pm, Monday to Friday, and could take children on either a part or full-day basis. A brochure published in 1989 described the Civic Creche as providing:
2:38 Speaker 00 “Quality childcare for children, from many different racial, cultural, social and economic backgrounds. A full range of stimulating and creative activities are offered, with a special extension programme for the four-year-olds.” The Creche's central location meant that educators could take children on excursions to the Botanical Gardens, the Avon River, a local wildlife park, the town hall, and other Christchurch attractions. Children participated in both free-play and more structured activities, and they had a Taha Maori programme to teach the children about New Zealand’s indigenous culture.
3:19 Speaker 00 Every week, the Creche highlighted a different theme which was determined by the staff members at their monthly meetings. By 1991, there were 11 permanent staff that ranged in age from 20 to 53. All had at least one qualification that enabled them to work there. The Creche's supervisor was Gaye Davidson, who had a reputation for being kind and approachable. On Wednesday, November 20, 1991, Gaye was contacted by the mother of a three-year-old who attended the Creche. The mother said that she suspected her son had been sexually abused by the Creche's only male childcare worker.
4:27 Speaker 00 The mother, who would later become known by the pseudonym of Ms Magnolia, informed Gaye Davidson that she would be keeping her son Geoffrey, not his real name, home from the creche until the male employee was removed. Gaye Davidson immediately leapt into action. She sought advice from the city council administration and paid a visit to the Magnolia family home alongside a council personnel officer that same day. Speaking to Ms Magnolia and her husband, Gaye received a clear report of what had unfolded. Their three-year-old son Geoffrey had been exhibiting troubling behaviour for some time.
5:08 Speaker 00 He could be prone to tantrums, sometimes woke with pain in his legs, and could be fussy about his clothes. Sometimes he didn’t want to go to creche. He used the words penis and vagina as insults. Ms Magnolia had also noticed occasional radness around his anus.
5:30 Speaker 00 About a month earlier, Geoffrey had said to his father: “I don’t like Peter’s black penis.” Peter seemed to refer to Peter Ellis, the male childcare worker at Geoffrey’s creche, but 33-year-old Peter wasn’t black. Geoffrey’s father asked if he’d seen Peter’s penis, or was he just telling a story? Geoffrey answered the latter, so his father dropped the subject. But Geoffrey made a similar remark to his mother on Sunday, November 17, while having a bath.
6:06 Speaker 00 Like her husband, Ms Magnolia probed Geoffrey with follow-up questions. Again, Geoffrey said he hadn’t seen Peter’s penis.
6:16 Speaker 00 On Tuesday, November 19, Geoffrey told his grandmother that he didn't want to go to Craysh that day because he didn't like Peter's black penis. By now, Ms Magnolia was highly concerned. She herself was a survivor of sexual abuse and was now a social worker who had written a handbook on the subject.
6:38 Speaker 00 Her son's repeated comments, combined with his sometimes troubling behaviour, suggested he may have been the victim of abuse.
6:47 Speaker 00 That night, she questioned Geoffrey again. "Will you tell me what happened with Peter and his penis?", she asked. "No, I won't", said Geoffrey. "Did Peter hurt you?" "No." "Did Peter scare you?" "Yes." Geoffrey told his mother he didn't want to go to Craysh anymore, but he'd go if Peter was no longer there. Then, his mother asked: "Was Peter's penis scary?"
7:18 Speaker 00 "It was darky scary", Geoffrey said. "If Peter came to this house, he would be a monster. If he was a monster and he was here, you'd be asleep, Mum, in your bed, and you'd wake up and see the monster, and you'd be surprised."
7:40 Speaker 00 The Magnolias were asked to submit their complaint in writing, so that the council could initiate proper proceedings. Once they had the written complaint, they would pass it on to Peter Ellis and his union and hold a hearing within four days. In the meantime, Peter would be suspended on paid leave. The couple submitted their written complaint that same day, concluding it by adding that they were worried for the safety of other children at the Craysh as well.
8:11 Speaker 00 Gaye Davidson was shocked and confused by the allegations. She couldn't believe Peter Ellis could be capable of harming a child, but at the same time, she wondered, had something happened? Peter had worked at the Christchurch Civic Kreish since 1986, when he was 28 years old. His career in early childhood education had come about in an unorthodox way. Peter had previously been employed at a bakery and was also receiving dull payments from the government. When the New Zealand authorities realised Peter had received more money than he was entitled to, he was charged with misleading a social welfare officer and sentenced to 80 hours community service.
8:57 Speaker 00 Peter was given the option of completing his community service at an animal shelter or a kreish. He chose the latter.
9:06 Speaker 00 Peter soon began his service at the Christchurch Civic Kreish, which was just a 20-minute walk from the large boarding house where he lived. Because the kreish had a philosophy of giving everyone a fair go, there was no stigma associated with Peter's sentence. He hadn't committed a violent crime and his offending wasn't of a serious nature. There were no barriers to him working with children. But there had still been some initial concerns that Peter might not fit in or be accepted at the kreish. Peter was bisexual during a time when it had recently been legal to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. He also expressed himself in an open way, where others might have opted to be more muted.
9:52 Speaker 00 Often described as flamboyant, Peter had long hair, wore brightly coloured clothes and applied make-up. His fingers had long nails and were adorned with rings. And he was loud, with a biting sense of humour. But the Creches accepting community welcomed Peter, and he became a favourite of some parents and children alike. Peter loved kids, and they returned that affection, often begging him to play their favourite games. One mother was so impressed with Peter that she employed him to babysit her three-and-a-half-year-old daughter as well. Keen to stay on after his community service had concluded, Peter applied for the New Zealand Childcare Association's training course,
10:37 Speaker 00 and in March 1987, Gaye Davidson recommended him for a permanent position.
10:45 Speaker 00 However, there had been some issues that Gaye had to pull Peter up on. Although he was renowned for his sharp wit, sometimes his jokes verged on mean, particularly when directed at his colleagues. He was fond of a drink and had been known to sometimes drink too much. He loved his job, but had trouble with authority sometimes. And while he enjoyed playing games with the kids, he had a tendency to overdo it at times. Peter became known for the mattress game, an activity where he laid a mattress on the floor and lined children up in front of it. Then he'd hurl another mattress at them, tossing them backwards to be sandwiched between the two mattresses.
11:29 Speaker 00 The kids loved it and begged Peter to play the game, but after a couple of children knocked heads, Gaye Davidson told Peter to stop.
11:40 Speaker 00 That wasn't the only boisterous game Peter initiated. Another time, he'd hung a little boy off the Creches picket fence by his overalls, while a group of other kids clamoured for him to hang them up too. Again, Gaye told him that such activities weren't appropriate. He was great with kids and knew how to make them laugh, but he didn't always have the most sensitive approach. In February 1989, Peter had been issued a warning for not consoling a child who was crying, for using excessive physical force, and for being overly sarcastic in a way that confused children. Peter disputed the details of this warning,
12:23 Speaker 00 and there were no further issues after that. Overall, Gay had been very happy with Peter as a colleague. Now, she found herself torn between wanting to support him and wondering whether there might be a reason she shouldn't.
12:43 Speaker 00 Peter Ellis was notified of the allegations and put on leave, while a hearing was scheduled for the following Monday, November 25. There was a strict protocol that had to be followed, which meant that no one who knew about the complaint was permitted to say anything about it to anyone else, including creche staff or parents. Peter Ellis adamantly denied any wrongdoing. He told others he couldn't understand why Geoffrey Magnolia would make such a strange remark and wondered if it had something to do with a puppy Peter had recently sold to the family. Peter loved animals and sometimes bred them. Two months earlier, in September,
13:25 Speaker 00 Ms Magnolia had visited Peter Ellis's home with Geoffrey to buy a black puppy he was selling. Geoffrey mentioned that he wanted to name the puppy Blossom, so Peter turned the puppy over to show Geoffrey that it was male. Pointing to the dog's genitalia, he said, "Look, it's a boy." Others speculated that Geoffrey might have overheard something he shouldn't have, as Peter was known for making crude jokes about his private life to his colleagues. He liked to shock the women he worked with by telling them outrageous things, like how he participated in golden showers, a sexual practice where one would urinate on one's partner.
14:09 Speaker 00 A couple of creche workers remembered that a few months earlier in August, Peter had told them how he had used black markers to colour in his boyfriend's penis after his boyfriend came home drunk one night. They suspected the little boy had overheard this conversation and, not understanding it, was troubled.
14:30 Speaker 00 Peter retained a lawyer and met with a union representative, who advised Peter not to attend the hearing. Any allegations of possible sexual abuse was a matter for the police to investigate, not the council. Meanwhile, a two-person team from the Education Review Office visited the Craysh every day to closely monitor the goings-on. They also interviewed between twenty to thirty parents and city council officials. They found nothing untoward and gave the Craysh a positive review, noting that the children appeared happy, inquisitive and sociable, and had high self-esteem.
15:11 Speaker 00 On Monday, November twenty-five, Geoffrey Magnolia was interviewed as part of the council’s investigation. The little boy made no disclosures about sexual abuse or Peter Ellis. The lack of evidence against Peter meant the council was leaning towards reinstating him. Geoffrey’s parents refused to accept this however, and continued to pressure the council to fire Peter. One council official warned Ms Magnolia that spreading word of the allegation at this stage would be both defamatory and inflammatory, but suggested she could file a police report. Ms Magnolia replied that she already had.
15:54 Speaker 00 She had phoned Christchurch’s Child Abuse Unit on the same day as Geoffrey’s interview and spoken to a detective named Colin Ead. She had also spoken to other Craysh parents about the matter, despite being told not to, later explaining: “I intentionally didn’t listen to that because I have a strong belief that secrecy in sexual abuse cases keeps it happening and I felt it needed to be talked about. I rang the parents of friends that Geoff played with because I was concerned for those kids.”
16:32 Speaker 00 In response to Ms Magnolia’s report, Detective Colin Ead began looking into the accusations. Soon, he’d received complaints from three further parents. The detective didn’t like the sound of Peter Ellis, and he was particularly suspicious of the way he’d obtained a position at the creche in the first place. By all reports, Peter Ellis loved animals and owned many pets. Why then, when given the option of completing his community service at an animal shelter, had he opted to volunteer at a creche instead? It sounded like the action of a potential predator seeking easy access to vulnerable children.
17:14 Speaker 00 Within a week of obtaining the complaint, Detective Ead advised the city council that he believed he was on to something big. On Detective Ead’s advice, an urgent meeting was planned to alert all creche parents that a staff member was under suspicion, despite the council’s stance that the allegations should be withheld pending a full investigation. As it was, word had already gotten out to some parents who had been calling social welfare agencies for answers. Detective Ead attended the meeting, which was held at the creche on Monday, December 2. Word of the meeting was somehow leaked to Christchurch newspaper The Press, which ran
17:57 Speaker 00 a story that same day about Ellis’s suspension with the headline “Allegations of Abuse”.
18:06 Speaker 00 Roughly 100 parents attended the meeting, most of whom had been completely oblivious as to the allegations. When Ms Magnolia arrived, she paused in the doorway and burst into tears. A couple of other parents rushed over to support her, escorting her to a seat. Concern spread amongst the others present upon witnessing this scene.
18:32 Speaker 00 Detective Ead addressed the group, assuring them there was no need for alarm, but there were some concerns. A staff member had been suspended. Based on Peter Ellis's absence from the meeting, everyone quickly deduced that he was the staff member in question. An employee of the Department of Social Welfare, or DSW, also spoke at the meeting. While she wouldn't discuss the allegations that had been made, she told parents about warning signs they should watch out for in their children: nightmares, tantrums, cleanliness, and bed wetting. Physical symptoms to monitor included rashes and abrasions.
19:16 Speaker 00 They should also pay attention if their child was starting to exhibit any general behavioural changes, especially behaviour that seemed sexual in nature. She recommended books parents could read to their children that addressed sexual abuse in an age-appropriate manner, such as the 1983 publication A Very Touching Book by therapist Jan Hindman. But, parents were not to question their children themselves. Interviewing children about sexual abuse required the expertise of trained specialists. Over the course of the meeting, the mood became more volatile, with some parents shouting that the council would have to pay for what had happened.
20:00 Speaker 00 Other parents took the opposite stance, with one father remarking: “There's an assumption of guilt here that I find very disturbing.”
20:11 Speaker 00 A few people abruptly stood and left, describing the situation as “a witch hunt”. From that moment on, the community was split into two camps: those who were certain that abuse had taken place, and those who weren't. Supporters of the Craysh suspected that Peter Ellis was being unfairly targeted due to homophobia, and was being scapegoated.
20:37 Speaker 00 Following the meeting, parents began to observe their children closely for the signs listed by the DSW employee. Upon seeing them, some parents couldn't resist asking more direct questions. None of the children made any disclosures about sexual abuse, though some complained about Peter's roughhousing. Sue Sidey, an employee with the DSW, conducted formal interviews with a number of the children as well. None of them disclosed any inappropriate touching from any Creche staff members; those two felt cause for concern for six of the children. Detective Colin Ead had provided parents with his contact details so they could reach
21:21 Speaker 00 out with any questions or concerns. He was only called by one parent after the meeting. On Friday, December 20, exactly one month after Ms Magnolia had first raised the alarm about Peter Ellis, Detective Ead closed the investigation, noting in his report: “It is unlikely that these children will disclose sexual abuse. The investigation is complete as far as the police are concerned. If anything further develops in 1992, I will advise you.”
22:04 Speaker 00 Case file will be back shortly. Thank you for supporting us by listening to this episode’s sponsors. The holidays are always such a busy time of year, and between work, socialising and everything else going on, the last thing I want to be thinking about is what I’m going to make for dinner every night. With fresh ingredients delivered straight to your door and easy recipes to follow, Home Chef takes the stress out of dinner. There are more than 30 meals to choose from each week, with options for different tastes and dietary needs, including calorie-conscious and GLP-1-friendly meals. And there’s something for every schedule: whether you want a 30-minute meal, an oven-ready
22:47 Speaker 00 tray, or a quick microwave lunch, Home Chef has you covered. Olivia LaVoix from the Case File Presents series The Bakersfield 3 says Home Chef is one of her go-to options when life gets busy. She loves that it’s convenient, uses quality ingredients, and lets her try new meals without spending hours planning. So this holiday season, give yourself one less thing to think about. For a limited time, Home Chef is offering my listeners 50% off and free shipping for your first box, plus free dessert for life. Go to homechef.com/casefile.
23:26 Speaker 00 That’s homechef.com/casefile for 50% off your first box and free dessert for life. Homechef.com/casefile. Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert. Thank you for listening to this episode’s ads. By supporting our sponsors, you support Case File to continue to deliver quality content. Despite the closure of the investigation, Peter Ellis was not reinstated at the creche. Although Detective Colonied never met with Peter Ellis or interviewed him, he had notified
24:10 Speaker 00 the council that he was concerned by reports of Peter’s rough behaviour with the children. Quote, “It is clear to me that Peter Ellis should not be involved in any way in the supervision or care of children. I believe that we were very lucky to have this brought to our attention at this stage. If he had continued on at the centre, things could have got worse.” Moreover, rumours were persisting, and two parents had un-enrolled their children from the civic creche, including Ms Magnolia. She and a number of other parents had formed a support group and continued to worry about children who had been in Peter’s care, including four children whom he was known
24:54 Speaker 00 to have babysat outside of the creche. They kept questioning their own children about Peter and encouraged other parents to do the same. They read aloud from the books that the DSW worker had suggested. At least one mother told her daughter that Peter had been very naughty and was probably going to jail.
25:18 Speaker 00 On Thursday, January 30, a little over a month after the police investigation into the allegations against Peter Ellis was closed, one child disclosed something to her mother. Seven-year-old Mandy, not her real name, had never attended the creche, but her younger siblings had. Her mother, referred to by the pseudonym of Miss Arbutus, was a social worker. She'd been an early supporter of Ms Magnolia and had helped organise the parents' meeting two months earlier. Sometimes Mandy visited the creche with her mother to collect her siblings. Mandy told her mother that Peter Ellis had abused her during some of these five-to-ten-minute windows.
26:03 Speaker 00 An interview with DSW worker Sue Siede was arranged. Mandy told Sue Siede that she'd been in the area of the creche for older children, playing a xylophone, when Peter Ellis approached her on stilts. When Sue interrupted to clarify if Peter was really on stilts, Mandy amended her description and said he wasn't, before continuing. "He came along and he touched, touched, touched, touched me, touched, touched. Then I said no, and then I ran away, and so did him, because he didn't want to be caught, because I always knew it was him."
26:44 Speaker 00 Mandy indicated that Peter had touched her under her clothing and attempted to digitally penetrate her. Mandy's disclosure had an immediate effect and resulted in Detective Colin Ead launching a second investigation.
27:01 Speaker 00 More disclosures soon followed. By late February, more and more children were making allegations, which grew increasingly shocking in nature. Some alleged that Peter Ellis had shown them his penis and forced them to perform oral sex. Others said he had touched their genitals. He had poured water from a hose into a cup before ejaculating into it and making the children drink it. He also forced them to drink his urine and eat his faeces. One girl said the reason she hadn't reported the abuse until now was because... "He just said, 'Don't tell your parents, or else you'll turn into a girkin and get eaten up.'"
27:46 Speaker 00 She had seen Peter eat gherkins before. Once, she'd had one in her lunchbox and Peter had come along and stolen it. As the children disclosed these alleged abuses, some were referred for specialist pediatric examinations. None of these medical examinations resulted in definitive evidence of sexual abuse, and none of the children were found to have any sexually transmitted illnesses. One child reportedly had possible scarring around her anus, which the examiner said was supportive of the allegation of sexual abuse. A few children were described as having redness, inflammation, and minor irritation.
28:28 Speaker 00 By the end of March, five children had made formal allegations of sexual abuse by Peter Ellis. Jeffrey Magnolia, the child whose comments had sparked the initial investigation, was not one of them. Despite never obtaining a disclosure from the original complainant, Detective Colin Ead was ready to make an arrest. Monday, March 30, 1992, was Peter Ellis's 34th birthday. That morning, Detective Ead and four other officers from the Child Abuse Unit arrived on his doorstep armed with a search warrant. Peter was arrested, while officers began searching his home for documents, photographs, or videos relating to the sexual abuse of children.
29:14 Speaker 00 They recovered nothing, despite returning again on another occasion to rip up the floorboards.
29:22 Speaker 00 While Peter's home was being searched for evidence, he was transferred to the police station for questioning. Peter informed the police that he couldn't help them before calling his lawyer. In the presence of his attorney, he answered more questions and listened as details of the allegations were put before him. Peter pointed out some errors in the children's claims, such as one girl describing him as wearing pairs of striped and spotted shorts, which he didn't own. Detective Colin Ead disregarded this, stating: "So she hasn't got the clothes completely right? That still takes us to the statements about the touching of her vagina. Did you ever do that?" "No," Peter replied.
30:08 Speaker 00 How long do you think it might take to touch a child's vaginal area? The detective continued. I wouldn't know, because I have never done anything like that, Peter retorted.
30:21 Speaker 00 Despite his denials, Peter Ellis was charged with sexually abusing the five separate complainants. He was granted bail the following day, while being ordered to stay away from children and away from the creche, as well as to observe a strict 7pm to 7am curfew.
30:43 Speaker 00 That same evening of Tuesday, March 31, roughly 250 current and former Christchurch civic creche parents crowded into a church hall for another meeting about the case. There was a heavy police presence outside the building, and the city's entire child abuse unit inside, including Detective Colonied. Hanging over everybody present was a heavy sense of anxiety and fear. Parents were updated about the arrest of Peter Ellis, though investigators were cagey when asked what had actually happened, simply stating that the matter was now before the courts and couldn't be discussed.
31:25 Speaker 00 But they assured parents that counselling was available for anyone who required it, and recommended that they have their children formally interviewed. Parents were also encouraged to go home and ask their children questions about possible abuse, while not being too specific. If a child did disclose an offence, parents should thank them for sharing, reassure them that they hadn't done anything wrong, and notify DWS immediately.
31:55 Speaker 00 Society again listed symptoms of abuse that parents should watch out for, and spoke in a very emotional fashion. This added to the overall atmosphere of anger and panic. Some parents began to ask questions that suggested they felt they were being lied to by the council. One parent demanded to know if other staff members had been involved. A four-page booklet was passed out to attendees as they left, providing them with information about child sexual abuse, as well as information about counselling, medical examinations, and possible compensation.
32:35 Speaker 00 In the days that followed this meeting, roughly sixty parents phoned a specially coordinated police hotline to request videotaped interviews for their children. It would take DSW employees and detectives several months to conduct them all, with up to five children being interviewed each day. By the end of May 1992, police had uncovered eight new complainants, bringing the total number to thirteen. One new complainant was a former student called Eli Laurel, not his real name, who’d left the creche to attend school that year after turning five in 1991.
33:18 Speaker 00 He started out by talking about Peter Ellis as being “sometimes bad and sometimes good”. When asked what Peter did that was bad, Eli said he dipped people in the ponds. Peter was known for sometimes dipping the children’s hair in paddling pools and water troughs on a hot day. Gradually, Eli disclosed more, saying that Peter did wheeze in people’s faces and placed his penis in Eli’s mouth. Another new complainant was Zelda Cypress, not her real name, who was also a former student and the oldest of the complainants at nine years old.
33:59 Speaker 00 Zelda had attended the Christchurch Civic creche for two years and had also been babysat by Peter Ellis around Christmas of 1986, shortly after he’d started working there. Zelda gradually revealed that Peter had abused her while babysitting her at his home. He’d exposed himself, and Zelda later said he’d touched her inappropriately as well. More children made additional disclosures about Peter making them consume urine and feces and touching their genitalia. One girl said Peter had raped her. The thirteenth complainant was a little boy who would become known by the pseudonym of
34:40 Speaker 00 Bart Dogwood, who started attending the creche in 1989 when he was almost three. Initially, when his mother had asked if Peter had ever touched him inappropriately, Bart had replied: “Peter wouldn’t do that to me, he’s my friend.”
34:58 Speaker 00 But, over the coming weeks, after he was questioned again, Bart said Peter had touched his penis while cleaning him up after he went to the toilet.
35:12 Speaker 00 More social workers and experts had been added to the case as it grew. In May of 1992, a DSW social worker named Jan Galanders was tasked with supporting the families who had been involved in court proceedings.
35:28 Speaker 00 Jen Crossan, a nurse with social work experience, was appointed to support past and present Kresch families who were not going to court. The two women would spend much of the next year visiting families, liaising with investigators and therapists, and attending the meetings of various support groups that had sprung up around the case.
35:50 Speaker 00 They also provided families with information about child sexual abuse, pulling together a range of helpful books on the subject.
35:59 Speaker 00 The presence of Jan Galanders and Jen Crossan led to some families who'd initially refused the offer of interviews to change their minds. The case had also become a big news story. An initial suppression order that had kept Peter Ellis's name out of the media had been dropped, and stories regularly ran about him. Throughout winter, the number of complainants continued to grow, until there were twenty.
36:28 Speaker 00 Roughly eight thousand pages of evidence had been received, with more to come.
36:34 Speaker 00 Jeffrey Magnolia, the child whose initial comments sparked the case, had clammed up about the subject when interviewed by police, so he wasn't a complainant. But he would occasionally still refer to Peter when talking to his mother. One day, in late June, he was walking with his parents when they passed the Masonic Lodge. Jeffrey pointed at the building and said that Peter had taken him there. A short while later, he pointed at a manhole cover on the road, remarking that Peter had pushed children inside to where there were caged gorillas underground.
37:14 Speaker 00 Ms Magnolia was concerned about these remarks. She began to keep lists of things such as this that Geoffrey said and notified detectives. At the end of July, she walked Geoffrey past the Masonic Lodge again. Once more, Geoffrey said he'd been there, along with a number of other places. The Botanic Gardens, car parks, some hotels, hospitals and bridges, amongst many more.
37:44 Speaker 00 Ms Magnolia noted all of these places on her lists, as well as something else. Descriptions of other people who had supposedly participated in the abuse. These included: bad men, some women, Maori men, a man with a ponytail, and Peter Ellis's mother.
38:05 Speaker 00 Now, fear was starting to spread that Peter Ellis hadn't acted alone.
38:14 Speaker 00 Another meeting was held where Detective Colin Ead and a colleague spoke to parents about these new allegations. They would need more information before they could identify any other possible perpetrators. Copies of Ms Magnolia's lists were distributed so that parents could ask their children about the places and people described.
38:36 Speaker 00 By early August 1992, another child was making disclosures in line with Geoffrey Magnolia's. Bart Dogwood had previously stated that Peter had molested him while tidying him up after he went to the toilet. He'd disclosed this almost fifteen months after he'd stopped attending the creche, after his concerned mother began questioning him. When she received the lists of possible other locations where abuse had taken place, she took Bart to the large boarding house that had previously been Peter Ellis's home and parked outside. Observing her son as he looked at the building, she was certain that he recognised it and took him back for another DSW interview.
39:23 Speaker 00 There, Bart said that he'd taken a bath with Peter in a house. Peter had sworn at him, threatened his family, raped him, made Bart masturbate him, and forced the boy to eat his faeces. There had been some other men present, but Bart didn't know who they were.
39:44 Speaker 00 Bart's parents were sure that more had happened. Over the past few months Bart had been experiencing behavioural issues. He was refusing to use the toilet, instead soiling himself, and had mood swings. Certain he'd experienced more than he'd revealed, they continued to question their son at home.
40:07 Speaker 00 Two days later, on Thursday, August 6th, they took him back for another interview, where he spoke in more detail about abuses he'd experienced in Peter Ellis's flat.
40:19 Speaker 00 Twenty adults had been present, including Peter and his mother. There were also fifteen men that Bart described as "Asian" in appearance. They were dressed in black and white costumes and had danced in a circle around several naked children in some kind of ritual act. There were also three other women present, who participated in the abuse. Two of the women undressed and pretended to have sex, while Peter and his mother took photos. Unlike the Asian men, Bart knew who these women were. They were other childcare workers from the Craysh.
41:00 Speaker 00 Their names were Gaye Davidson, Marie Keys, and Janice Buckingham.
41:11 Speaker 00 Bart had also named some of the children present at this bizarre scene. As word of his disclosures spread, these children were questioned. Worried parents grilled their kids and took them on field trips to the same locations, trying to prompt any recollections. Some of the other complainants began making similar reports to Bart. They agreed that they had been harmed at Peter Ellis's home and the Masonic Lodge other victims had identified. And they also echoed Bart's description of the Asian men who had danced around naked children, which became known as "The Circle Incident".
41:52 Speaker 00 New details of various assaults kept coming. Adults had taken photographs, pricked them with needles and drugged them with pills. Fingers, food and sticks were inserted into the children's orifices. Once, Peter had swung a child around a prickled bush by his penis. Animals featured heavily in some disclosures. There were descriptions of Peter killing and cooking kittens, then feeding them to the children. He kept a pet giraffe at his house, and sometimes he would tie up the children and confine them in cages alongside lions. Once, he turned a child into a frog and a cat.
42:37 Speaker 00 This reference to a supposed spell wasn't the only allegation of occult-like behaviour. Children said they had to chant, perform mock marriages and were buried in graveyards. They had blood poured over their heads and were forced to consume what they thought was human flesh. Bart would later say that he had also been forced to kill another little boy named Andrew.
43:04 Speaker 00 The adults and other children had looked on as Bart used a knife to stab Andrew, who'd been placed inside a coffin. No trace of Andrew was ever found.
43:16 Speaker 00 More complainants named Gay and Marie as perpetrators and said they'd seen them at the Masonic Lodge, where there were trapdoors, underground tunnels and cameras.
43:28 Speaker 00 Another staff member named Debbie Gillespie was also accused. The naming of the female creche workers didn't come as a surprise to police. There had been suspicions about some of the women who worked at the creche from early in the investigation, but these were initially dismissed after the women presented well in interviews. However, a recent report had caused detectives to rethink things.
43:56 Speaker 00 After the allegations against Peter Ellis were first made, Christchurch City Council had commissioned a review of management practices at the Craysh. The review would be undertaken by Rosemary Smart, a registered psychologist who’d trained in education and social work and was assigned as an independent outsider. Smart’s role wasn’t to determine whether there had been any abuse; instead, she was looking at the Craysh’s management and policies. The council hoped the report would restore the Craysh’s excellent reputation. Smart first met with Craysh staff in March of 1992 and spent time observing them at work on a number of occasions.
44:40 Speaker 00 She interviewed each of them one-on-one and was given access to statements they’d provided to the police. She never met with Peter Ellis or observed him working with children. By the end of August 1992, Smart was ready to deliver her completed report. Although Peter Ellis was yet to stand trial, the report spoke of the abuse and his guilt as though both had been confirmed. It also contained detailed accounts of his deviant lifestyle, which she had allegedly been told about by his colleagues. Smart was also critical of the Craysh’s female childcare workers, writing:
45:23 Speaker 00 “On the one hand, all but one staff member was struggling to believe Ellis had abused anyone and frankly could not accept such abuse could have happened at the Craysh. And yet, individually, each one carried information about his behaviour that would send alarm bells screaming in the head of anyone with the slightest clue about child sex abuse.”
45:46 Speaker 00 Some of the remarks divulged by Peter’s colleagues included concerns about Peter’s drinking and his ability to babysit children outside of work. He had reportedly mentioned that an uncle had abused him when he was eight years old, but it was okay because he knew what he was doing.
46:06 Speaker 00 There were reports that Peter had made inappropriate comments about children’s bodies and the size of the boys’ penises. “I thought he was perverted,” one employee said. “He told me explicit details of the men and women he slept with. He likes to flaunt his sex life.”
46:26 Speaker 00 Smart suggested, because he behaved and spoke somewhat outrageously and possibly because he was bisexual, he was seen as different. Therefore, for both staff and parents, the usual boundaries did not seem to apply. Smart was critical of the staff for what she believed was their total lack of training in sexual abuse prevention and detection. She also quoted research from a 1987 book by American sociologist David Finkelhor titled Nursery Crimes.
47:03 Speaker 00 Finkelhor's book deals with the issue of child sexual abuse within daycare centres, with a particular emphasis on ritual abuse and abuse by female workers. It had become something of a go-to manual on the topic for social workers and sexual abuse experts.
47:25 Speaker 00 Christchurch Police had received a copy of Smart's report at around the same time that children started naming the female Craysh employees as perpetrators alongside Peter Ellis. Investigators had looked into Peter's mother, Lesley Ellis, after some of the children included her in their accusations. But, they ultimately concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to implicate her. They narrowed their focus to the other Craysh workers instead, with Smart's work going some way to convincing the Child Abuse Unit detectives that they needed to investigate the women there. They also needed to take action to prevent the abuse of any more children.
48:08 Speaker 00 Four women's names had come up during disclosures, and all four still worked at the Craysh. On Thursday, September 3, 1992, the Christchurch Civic Craysh was abruptly and permanently closed by the Ministry of Education. All 13 of its staff members were made redundant.
48:31 Speaker 00 By now, the case had become a media circus. Rumours about what had been going on at the Kreis were running rampant. Some reporters heard that Kreis employees had been importing live snakes from Australia for use in rituals, and stealing terminated fetuses from an abortion clinic, then eating them. It was said that children were being trafficked for “Asian sex rings”.
48:59 Speaker 00 Peter Ellis and now his female colleagues became the targets of public rage. One Kreis employee, who was in her early twenties, was told at the supermarket that she and everyone else who’d worked at the Kreis should have the words “child molester” tattooed across their foreheads.
49:18 Speaker 00 Police from the Child Abuse Unit obtained search warrants for the homes of the four female Kreis workers who had been implicated in the abuse, as well as another employee who hadn’t been. Rather than go to the district court nearby, they opted to travel to the Christchurch suburbs to obtain permission from an elderly judge. He signed their warrants, which indicated that they would be looking for address books, pornography, and the remains of human babies, amongst other things. Nothing of significance was found, though at Debbie Gillespie’s house, police recovered a handwritten note that joked about children watching through a home’s window at a couple having sex.
50:01 Speaker 00 In Gaye Davidson’s office at the Kreis, police found two letters, both of which were declining job applications. One of the letters joked that, as the Kreis already employed one paedophile, they didn’t need another.
50:19 Speaker 00 Despite the lack of physical evidence, all four female suspects were arrested on Thursday, October 1, in publicly televised events. Not wanting any of their former colleagues to fall under suspicion, the four female suspects opted against having their names suppressed. Their faces were splashed across newspapers and the Daily News, revealing that they all looked very different from one another.
50:47 Speaker 00 Thirty-nine-year-old Gaye Davidson was a mother of two with streaked hair, who'd worked at the Kreishe for eight years and had been its supervisor for the last four. Marie Keys, forty-four years old, was the assistant supervisor and had two teenage daughters. She was petite, described as kindly and dressed conservatively. Mother of four, Janice Buckingham, was also forty-four, with a tall, strong build. Debbie Gillespie was twenty-nine years old and wore long flowing dresses. She had been at the Kreishe for four years and was the head of its nursery, looking after the youngest children.
51:29 Speaker 00 Although three of these women were mothers, they were never investigated for possible abuse against their own children, nor deemed unsafe for their children to be around.
51:41 Speaker 00 On Monday, November 2, 1992, one month after the women's arrest, a deposition hearing for all five defendants began. Both sides would make their cases before a judge, who would determine if there was enough evidence to proceed to the High Court. The defendants were facing a total of sixty charges of sexual offending against twenty children. Peter Ellis had been charged with twenty-six counts of indecent assault, twelve counts of sexual violation, six counts of inducing an indecent act, and one count of performing an indecent act in a public place. Gaye Davidson, Marie Keys, and Janice Buckingham
52:24 Speaker 00 were each facing three counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual violation for assaulting children during the circle incident. Debbie Gillespie was charged with one count of indecent assault, one of sexual violation, and one of public indecency. It had been alleged by a child that she and Peter Ellis had had sex on the Kreishe's bathroom floor.
52:51 Speaker 00 An angry crowd had gathered outside the court to make their feelings about the defendant's known. There was no doubt in their minds that all five were guilty of unspeakable acts. But, inside the court, very few people were present. There were so many potential witnesses in the case, that most people even tangentially connected to it were expecting to be called as witnesses. They wouldn't be able to sit in the public gallery until they had given their evidence. But the media was allowed to stay. In the end, only forty-seven out of ninety-two potential Crown witnesses were called to give
53:32 Speaker 00 evidence, meaning almost half wouldn't be testifying. Nevertheless, it took eleven weeks to complete the deposition hearing, which was a slow and arduous process. It began with roughly forty hours of videotaped interviews of the children being screened in court. Then, the DSW interviewers were called upon to give evidence. Four medical practitioners testified about examinations they'd performed on the children, stating that they hadn't found anything that definitively proved or ruled out sexual abuse. They testified to identifying symptoms consistent with abuse, though their findings were inconclusive and sometimes contradictory.
54:17 Speaker 00 During one examination, a doctor found that a female complainant's hymen appeared to have been penetrated, but, in a follow-up appointment, she later found the child's hymen showed no such thing. Police officers also testified about their investigations. They addressed something that people had long speculated about.
54:41 Speaker 00 How was Peter Ellis supposed to have abused these children in a busy creche where people were always coming and going without anyone ever seeing anything? More than seventy families used the creche each week and parents were known to show up at random throughout the day. No adults, no colleagues or parents had ever seen Peter abuse a child. The police testified that there were areas Peter had access to where he could abuse children uninterrupted, like the toilets and in a kitchen area that required a key to access. Police also alleged that he had taken children out on walks to his home.
55:24 Speaker 00 Peter vehemently denied this allegation. Two staff members were almost always present on walks outside of the creche. In addition to being questioned by the Crown attorneys, every witness was cross-examined by Peter Ellis's defence team and the four women's lawyers, who established that no physical evidence had been found to support any of the allegations. Following up on children's claims, investigators had searched the creche and other identified buildings for trap doors, secret tunnels, cages and child abuse material. They found nothing, nor had any graveyards been disturbed or links been uncovered to
56:08 Speaker 00 any other suspects, such as a group of Asian men. All four female defendants dressed conservatively for the hearing, while Peter Ellis wore his usual casual clothes, which made him look somewhat eccentric. The group passed notes between themselves throughout the hearing. Sometimes they made jokes and Peter drew comical cartoons about the proceedings. One message read: "I think we should publish a civic recipe book: needle, tomato and poison soup, kitten stew, urine sorbet. The possibilities are endless."
56:49 Speaker 00 The sound of muffled giggling that sometimes emanated from the defence table angered others present.
56:57 Speaker 00 In closing addresses, the defence attorneys argued that a jury trial could not proceed as there wasn't enough material evidence against their clients. On Thursday, February 11, 1993, the judge delivered his ruling. All five defendants would be committed to trial.
57:22 Speaker 00 The judge dismissed four of the charges, including the one of public indecency that related to Peter Ellis and Debbie Gillespie allegedly having sex at the creche. But Peter and his four colleagues would have to answer for all the other charges in front of a jury. From the back of the courtroom, someone was heard remarking: “Hang the bitches!”
57:47 Speaker 00 As the Crown began to prepare for trial, they had to decide exactly what evidence would be presented before a jury. That job fell to Crown solicitor Brent Stanaway. He began going over the evidence, assessing what was reliable and admissible, as well as likely to result in a conviction. Stanaway ultimately decided against calling upon six of the 20 complainant children whose claims had either been dismissed at the deposition hearing or were determined to be too weak. A couple of the complainants were also withdrawn from the case by their mothers.
58:27 Speaker 00 This led to no charges remaining against Debbie Gillespie, as her two remaining charges related to one of these children. The case against Debbie was dropped, and on Friday, March 5, 1993, she was officially discharged.
58:45 Speaker 00 Brent Stanaway also reduced the number of charges remaining that related to other complainants. Some multiple charges were blended into a single charge. This led to the three equal charges against Gay Davidson, Marie Keys and Janice Buckingham being reduced into just one charge. With his clients now facing a single charge, the women's defence attorney applied to have their case dismissed, arguing that no jury properly directed could find them guilty.
59:20 Speaker 00 Justice Neil Williamson, who was presiding over the trial, accepted this submission.
59:27 Speaker 00 On Tuesday, April 6, the charge against the three women was dropped, with Justice Williamson finding the evidence against them “of insufficient weight to justify their trial”.
59:43 Speaker 00 That left just Peter Ellis to stand trial alone. His charges had been significantly reduced during the preliminary trial process as well. The 45 charges he’d originally faced were whittled down to 28, and the number of complainants had dropped from 20 to 13.
1:00:05 Speaker 00 He was accused of having abused these children over five years, from 1986 to 1991. The Crown solicitor had offered to cancel all of the sexual violation charges if Peter agreed to plead guilty to one or two representational charges per complainant, but Peter had refused. His trial began on Monday, April 26, 1993.
1:00:33 Speaker 00 Some of the most bizarre accusations made by the complainants had not been included in the charges, such as the claims of animal torture, murder and satanic-style rituals. With no corroborating or material evidence to support these claims, the prosecution concluded that airing them might undermine their case or prove off-putting to the jury. However, the Circle incident would still be included, with the Crown alleging that Peter Ellis had abused children at an unknown location in the presence of others, and had provided other adults with children to abuse.
1:01:11 Speaker 00 Peter Ellis’s defence barrister, Rob Harrison, wanted the children’s videotaped interviews played in full. He hoped that if the jury heard their wilder allegations, then it would cast a reasonable doubt on their testimony and the case. To Harrison’s disappointment, the judge ruled that the tapes were not relevant and were therefore inadmissible.
1:01:36 Speaker 00 The Crown would first be calling on the thirteen complainants, all of whom were aged between three and a half to nine years old, and their parents. They would be followed by other witnesses, including police officers, DWS interviewers, and experts. The first witness was nine-year-old Azelda, the oldest of the complainants. She alleged that Peter Ellis had touched her vagina while babysitting her in 1986, had done so again at the creche, and had also forced her to touch his penis. The following two witnesses were girls who alleged that Peter had touched their genitals at the creche while they were fully dressed.
1:02:19 Speaker 00 The complainants who followed made increasingly violent allegations. Four said that Peter had urinated on them; one said he had touched her bottom with a needle. There were accusations that Peter had made children bathe with him, had hit and kicked them, attempted oral and penetrative rape, placed food against a child’s anus, and forced them to drink urine.
1:02:45 Speaker 00 The prosecution shared these allegations with the court by airing excerpts of the children’s taped interviews, then questioning the children briefly via video link. After this, Peter Ellis’s defence barrister cross-examined them. Rob Harrison asked about positive memories the children had of Peter, and tried to expose ways that their evidence might have been contaminated by outside sources, such as the abuse-themed books provided to parents, or conversations they might have overheard in the community. When Harrison told the children that Peter denied ever harming them, their responses were mixed. "That's not true," one said.
1:03:28 Speaker 00 "He did," said another. But one responded, "It's very hard to remember. I know very well some are true, and then I think, is that one true or what?" While questioning the eighth complainant, Harrison asked her, "Can you remember the first two tapes you made with DWS interviewer Cathy Crawford?" "We first learnt about all the things Peter did, and then we came on screen and did it," the girl replied. "You learnt it all before you came on the screen," Harrison clarified. "Yes."
1:04:10 Speaker 00 "Who taught it to you before you came on the screen?" The girl answered, "Cathy, and she told me what Peter did." Following this, the judge discharged Ellis of the counts relating to this particular child. The prosecution's expert witness was a child psychiatrist named Karen Zellis, who had supervised the social workers responsible for the children's interviews. She provided the court with a list of behaviours that were characteristic of child sexual abuse, including sleep disturbances, nightmares, toileting issues, mood changes, headaches,
1:04:50 Speaker 00 stomach aches, sadness, crying, separation anxiety, sexualised play, and others. She explained that most children who had been sexually abused failed to disclose at the time the abuse was happening, and would initially deny when later questioned about it. According to Dr Zellis, the complainants in this case were credible, and their behaviour was consistent with having been sexually abused. Under cross-examination, Rob Harrison asked Dr Zellis about a television interview she'd done about the case a year earlier, in which she'd been asked if there was a danger parents might start imagining behavioural changes in their child after fear of sexual abuse
1:05:35 Speaker 00 spread. Dr Zellis had answered, "Yes, there is." Questioned in the courtroom, she claimed not to remember this interview.
1:05:48 Speaker 00 To counter Dr. Zellis, the defence court Australian psychiatrist Keith LaPage, who said the behavioural changes described weren't exclusive to suffering sexual abuse and could be all part of normal child development. Some of Peter's former colleagues testified for the defence, as did seven Craysh parents who still supported him. More had wanted to, but felt unable to do so given the heated nature of the case. Some had felt pressure from their community to have their children interviewed, and later regretted giving in, feeling that the interviews themselves were the only trauma their children experienced related to the Craysh.
1:06:33 Speaker 00 Peter Ellis also sat in the witness box to answer the charges laid against him. He spoke at length about his work at the Craysh and the children there. Under an extensive cross-examination, the Crown attacked his credibility by pointing out apparent inconsistencies in his testimony and drew the jury's attention to opportunities he'd had to be alone with children. They queried Peter about conversations he'd had with colleagues relating to sexual matters, such as him once telling Janice Buckingham that he used a Polaroid camera to make pornography. Peter Ellis explained that he liked to have people on and would bait them with provocative claims.
1:07:18 Speaker 00 His defence barrister pointed out that not one of the children in the case had made a spontaneous disclosure of abuse. They had only said they were abused after repeated questioning by authority figures. Nor had any parents noticed any signs of trauma or evidence of abuse, such as blood or injuries.
1:07:39 Speaker 00 The jury retired to consider their verdict on Thursday, June 3, and spent almost three days deliberating. They returned with the decision at 3:30pm on Saturday, June 5. They had found Peter Ellis guilty on 16 out of 25 counts, and accepted that he had sexually abused seven children, including those known by the pseudonyms of Zelda Cypress and Bart Dogwood. This abuse was sometimes committed in the presence of others at locations outside of the creche, and Peter had also provided children for abuse by others.
1:08:21 Speaker 00 In sentencing, Justice Williamson described the jury's verdict as "obviously correct", before informing Peter Ellis that he would be going to prison for 10 years.
1:08:40 Speaker 00 Case file will be back shortly. Thank you for supporting us by listening to this episode's sponsors. This episode is sponsored by Vinted. We all hold on to things we know we're never going to wear again. I've got band t-shirts and hoodies tucked away in my wardrobe that no longer fit, and I know that some of them haven't seen the light of day in a very long time. It's a shame to have perfectly good clothes sitting there when someone else could get plenty of wear out of them, and if you can make a bit of extra money in the process, even better. Thankfully, there's an easy way to pass those clothes on. Vinted is a second-hand marketplace app that makes it easy to sell the clothes you no longer wear, find great deals,
1:09:25 Speaker 00 and give quality items a second life. All you need to do is add some photos, a description, and a price. When something sells, Vinted creates a prepaid shipping label for you, so there's no complicated postage process. Plus, there are no seller fees, so you keep what you earn from every sale. Whether you're clearing out your wardrobe or making room for something new, Vinted makes it easy to turn those unworn clothes into extra cash, and the app is free to download. Give your clothes a second life with Vinted. Download the Vinted app for free to start selling with no seller fees, so you keep everything you earn.
1:10:09 Speaker 00 Thank you for listening to this episode’s ads. By supporting our sponsors, you support Casefile to continue to deliver quality content.
1:10:24 Speaker 00 In the wake of Peter Ellis’s conviction, feelings throughout Christchurch were mixed. As far as some were concerned, a huge miscarriage of justice had just taken place, and it was the result of a dangerous trend occurring both at home and more broadly around the world.
1:10:43 Speaker 00 Thanks to a number of social shifts that had been taking place from the 1970s onwards, the issue of child sexual abuse was being addressed and acknowledged more than it ever had been before. The activism of second-wave feminists had shone a spotlight on topics that were previously hidden behind closed doors: domestic violence, marital rape, incest, and sexual assault. This created space for survivors to speak out and reframed the offences as a societal problem.
1:11:16 Speaker 00 This affected the attitudes surrounding crimes against children too. In the mid-20th century, some influential psychiatric theories had minimized or doubted children’s reports of sexual abuse. Between the 1940s and 60s, child sexual abuse wasn’t believed to be widespread and was thought to only affect certain social groups. Some people even believed that abuse caused no lasting harm. But by the 1970s and 1980s, attitudes were changing. Believed the children became a rallying cry for child advocates around the world,
1:11:56 Speaker 00 and it was becoming widely accepted and understood that there were predators out there who specifically targeted minors. Legal reforms started to strengthen child protection agencies, and more professionals were trained to detect abuse indicators and interview child victims.
1:12:16 Speaker 00 At the same time that social progress was bringing these issues to light and granting more rights to women and children, a cultural anxiety kicked in during the 1980s. With more women returning to work after having children, fears spread about what that meant for changing family structures. Some of these fears centred around a service that was now being used by more and more families: daycare. For the first time, many children were being cared for by relative strangers outside of the home. As awareness grew around child sexual abuse, suspicion began to land on those tasked with providing childcare.
1:12:59 Speaker 00 Over time, this anxiety resulted in a moral panic that became known as daycare sex abuse hysteria. It led to criminal investigations and trials in the United States, England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where daycare providers were accused of committing extensive sexual abuse. These cases often began with one parent's concerns and grew as a kind of contagion swept through a community. A fear that abuse might be missed led to child protection workers and law enforcement officers treating initial suspicions as potentially massive conspiracies.
1:13:42 Speaker 00 Although there have been cases of childcare workers sexually abusing children, cases that fell under the umbrella of daycare sex abuse hysteria were often marked by a lack of physical evidence, an incredibly large number of victims that only began to disclose under repeated questioning and pressure, and typically featured bizarre, implausible scenarios. Because child abuse was still becoming understood, investigators hadn't honed their interview techniques when it came to potential victims. In several cases, children were interviewed many times over months, with interviewers sometimes asking leading or forced-answer questions.
1:14:25 Speaker 00 Children who eventually confirmed abuse were rewarded with praise and attention, while those who said nothing had happened often weren't believed. Instead, they were questioned over and over, being pressured to disclose.
1:14:41 Speaker 00 Moreover, the panic that spread through a community when rumours of abuse took hold was known to cause what was called “contamination” in interviews. Children’s answers could be influenced by conversations they’d had with their parents, friends, or that they’d overheard. Research later showed that the interviewing styles used in many of the daycare sex abuse hysteria cases could increase false reports, distort memory, encourage children to guess, and create narrative escalations, where a story grew increasingly wild. Developmental psychologists have found that young children are highly suggestible, especially under repeated questioning by authority figures.
1:15:25 Speaker 00 Cambridge University professor Michael Lam, an expert on interviewing child abuse victims, has said that while children can be competent witnesses, they are susceptible to making errors during interviews when they infer that an interviewer is looking for a particular answer. Sometimes they want to help, but can’t understand the questions they are being asked. They can also become confused about the source of their memories for particular events.
1:15:55 Speaker 00 Interviewers during the 1980s and early 1990s also made use of anatomically correct dolls, which children could use to demonstrate abuse that they might struggle to describe verbally. These dolls were used in the Christchurch civic creche case. They later became controversial for several reasons. Anatomically correct dolls could increase suggestibility, leading children to guess at what an interviewer wanted when they handed them a doll that had genitals and asked them to describe touching. They can also lead to an interviewer guessing at a child’s demonstrations, which may merely be a form of play or an ambiguous action.
1:16:40 Speaker 00 Daycare sex abuse hysteria also intersected with another moral anxiety taking place at the same time: the satanic panic. Beginning in the USA in the 1980s, the satanic panic originated with the publication of a book titled “Michelle Remembers”. Co-authored by a Canadian psychiatrist and his patient, Michelle, whom he later married, the book detailed how Michelle recovered memories of extreme physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her mother, who worshipped Satan. Much of these claims were later debunked, but the book ignited a spark throughout the US and the world.
1:17:23 Speaker 00 Conspiracy theories spread about so-called “satanic cults” abusing and murdering children en masse, with daycare centres seen as the base for many such groups. Social workers, police investigators, child advocates and therapists began attending seminars by “experts” who taught them how to identify cases of occult and ritual abuse. The children they questioned began to reflect what these professionals had been taught, describing “outlandish and extreme events that couldn’t be substantiated, were often impossible, and had no basis in reality”. Many trials resulted in convictions that were later overturned, or not guilty verdicts
1:18:07 Speaker 00 due to a lack of evidence. In the wake of these events, major reforms were made to interview techniques in child abuse cases. These included the use of more open-ended questions, such as “tell me what happened”. Leading questions were avoided, as were repeat interviews. And praise for giving particular answers was dropped.
1:18:36 Speaker 00 When Peter Relis was arrested, New Zealand, and especially Christchurch, had been experiencing a kind of satanic panic for a while. Christchurch was a conservative city known for its grand cathedral, English-style gardens, and Edwardian architecture. Religious groups such as the Christian Heritage Party were vocal in their opposition to social change. But new influences were slowly changing the face of Christchurch, including a strong counterculture and diastatic scene. At the same time, fear that had cropped up overseas about satanic cults was spreading throughout New Zealand. Books, magazines, and other media shared stories about occult abuse, and individuals
1:19:21 Speaker 00 working in relevant fields began hearing more about the topic from overseas colleagues. An American therapist named Pamela Klein, who was a witness in a number of ritual abuse cases in the US, spoke at a conference in Wellington about diagnosing ritual abuse. She was later found to have exaggerated and even falsified her qualifications. In September 1991, 11 weeks before Ms Magnolia called the Craysh to report a possible case of abuse, Christchurch was hosting a family violence conference. Included in the schedule were some workshops about ritual abuse.
1:20:04 Speaker 00 Two councillors from the city of Wellington told attendees that there were middle-class paedophile rinks operating throughout the country. Even though no actual cases had been uncovered, they had interviewed three victims and 20 others had sought help. They pointed to similar cases in the United States, where there was talk of satanic ritual abuse taking place on a grand scale.
1:20:29 Speaker 00 On the same night that the conference began, New Zealand's 60 Minutes program ran a story about a pedophile ring that was rumored to be present in Christchurch. The rumors dated back to 1988, when a doctor first reported that child patients were telling horrific stories about sexual abuse perpetrated by multiple offenders against groups of victims. After repeated interviews with police, the children began to report being taken to private homes and gay bars where they were abused, filmed, and threatened. Lots of adults were present, as well as lots of other children. They described vehicles driven by the offenders and gave physical descriptions of their abusers.
1:21:15 Speaker 00 Principals of schools throughout the city were warned that their students were possibly being recruited for a “child pornography ring”. In August 1988, 30 police officers executed simultaneous search warrants at six different properties. An elderly man at one residence was found to possess naked photos of underage girls and was subsequently arrested. None of the other searches produced results. Although police worked hard, they couldn’t find any evidence of the pedophile ring everyone was talking about. But rumors of the ring continued to circulate, with some Christchurch residents certain that there was an underground community of gay men
1:22:00 Speaker 00 who were producing and distributing child abuse material. This persisted, despite the police reassuring them that they had investigated the case extensively and had even looked into a number of high-profile businessmen whose names had been reported. The case was still sending fear through the community in 1991, prompting 60 Minutes to cover the story in September of that year. Journalist Melanie Reid spoke to various experts who assured her there was a serious problem, though they were unable to provide evidence of the pedophile ring in question. The episode added to the climate of fear that had parents convinced that there was a well-organized, well-hidden group
1:22:44 Speaker 00 of child molesters operating with impunity throughout their city.
1:22:49 Speaker 00 Less than three months later, the Christchurch Civic Craysh would be investigated for crimes that sounded a lot like these.
1:23:01 Speaker 00 The subject of ritual abuse was one that a number of parents in the Civic Craysh case were familiar with.
1:23:08 Speaker 00 Quite a few of the complainant parents worked in child abuse-related professions, such as social work, therapy and counselling. Of the seven complainants whose evidence resulted in convictions, three had one or more parents who worked in those fields. In a climate of heightened awareness, parents with these backgrounds may have been more inclined to interpret certain child behaviours through an abuse lens. Moreover, in these circles, there was the possibility of a professional consensus developing that abuse was definitely happening. Ms Magnolia, the mother who initially alleged that Peter Ellis had molested her son Jeffrey, was seen by some to have a fixation with sexual abuse.
1:23:54 Speaker 00 She had recovered memories of her own childhood abuse and went on to write a pamphlet that warned about the epidemic of child abuse. Because Jeffrey never made any allegations of abuse by Peter to the police, he wasn’t one of the complainants at Peter’s trial. But his mother had made sure to get Jeffrey far away from Peter and the other Craysh employees, withdrawing him from the Christchurch Civic Craysh at the end of 1991. She subsequently enrolled Jeffrey at another Craysh, with workers there noting Ms Magnolia’s extreme fear and paranoia. She would ask the childcare workers there not to let Jeffrey play near the fence, because
1:24:37 Speaker 00 “there’s a paedophile ring and they’re out to get us”. The employees took her concern seriously, listening to her and reassuring her. But then, in September 1992, she accused a male worker of sexually abusing Jeffrey. This complaint was handled very differently to the Christchurch Civic Craysh case, with detectives and Craysh administrators keeping the matter tightly under wraps while it was investigated. There were no public meetings or calls from Ms Magnolia to other parents. After detectives looked into the case, they found no evidence to support the complaint, and it was dropped.
1:25:19 Speaker 00 Detective Colin Ead was not involved in that case. A closer examination of his involvement with the Christchurch civic creche case led to a number of concerns.
1:25:31 Speaker 00 His first notes written when he took down Ms Magnolia's complaint featured a comment about Peter Ellis. Quote, "He is apparently homosexual." From the outset, he appeared to consider Peter Ellis a dangerous man, despite no physical evidence that he had harmed any children.
1:25:51 Speaker 00 Although Ms Magnolia's complaint didn't lead anywhere, the case was reopened after a second child, known as Mandy Arbuthnot, made a disclosure. Although Mandy hadn't attended the creche, she said she was abused when she and her mother went to pick up her younger siblings. Detective Ead found this allegation particularly alarming, and thought it looked really serious. But Mandy's claims never resulted in any charges against Peter Ellis. Her mother withdrew Mandy from the case, and made a complaint to the police at the same time. She reported that Detective Ead had propositioned her.
1:26:33 Speaker 00 He later admitted to this, saying that he'd returned home after drinking heavily and received a phone call from Ms Arbuthnot. During that call, he, quote, "stupidly propositioned her." The next day, he'd tried to pass it off as a joke, but he had meant it.
1:26:52 Speaker 00 Detective Ead later went on to have romantic relationships with two other mothers involved in the case, though he said these occurred well after Peter Ellis's trial and incarceration.
1:27:08 Speaker 00 Peter Ellis had faced a lot of harassment and intimidation ever since the allegations against him first aired. His life was repeatedly threatened, and a bullet was even mailed to him. On one occasion, he was physically jumped and beaten up by four men who broke into his home. After he was incarcerated, it was expected that the danger would only increase.
1:27:33 Speaker 00 For the first month that he was incarcerated in Christchurch Men's Prison, commonly referred to as Paparua, Peter received constant abuse from other inmates. They taunted him to hang himself 24 hours a day. But by the end of August, the situation had calmed somewhat as the other men at Paparua got to know Peter. A number of them were familiar with the case and didn't think Peter was guilty. One notorious individual who'd watched the trial coverage on the news was overheard remarking: "That poor fucker's been set up." One day, a fellow inmate approached Peter and said: "My mum thinks you're innocent."
1:28:17 Speaker 00 Some of the guards were sympathetic as well. One in particular told Peter he didn't belong in Paparua, before letting him out of his cell to do some odd jobs on the sly. Peter had never doubted that the entire matter would eventually be resolved in his favour. From the moment he'd learnt that a child had made a comment about not liking his black penis, he assumed everyone would have to see that there was no case at all. Even when he found himself on trial in the High Court, Peter was certain his name would be cleared. He never could have imagined that the end result would be a decade in prison
1:28:57 Speaker 00 and still couldn't believe anyone would think him capable of molesting children. Although some had thought it suspicious that he'd opted to work in a creche over an animal shelter when he was a known animal lover, Peter had chosen the creche because it was an easy walk from his house. The animal shelter would require him to catch a bus every day, which he couldn't afford at the time. It was true that he sometimes had inappropriate conversations with colleagues at work and occasionally faced a reprimand for being too boisterous with the children, but overall, Peter had been a popular and beloved member of the creche community.
1:29:38 Speaker 00 Some of the accusations made against him, like the claims that he had locked children in cages with lions and killed a boy named Andrew, were so patently false that they weren't mentioned at trial. But even less outlandish claims could be refuted by basic facts. Several children had identified an old boarding house where Peter had lived as a place where he'd abused them after parents had taken them there. But Peter had moved out of that house years earlier, in some cases, years before the complainant children were even born. In fact, only one complainant had attended the creche when Peter had lived there.
1:30:21 Speaker 00 Four of the complainants said Peter had driven them in his car to various locations where they were abused. But Peter didn't own a car and couldn't drive. And although police had pointed to areas inside the creche where he could have abused children out of sight, the actual layout of those locations made such abuse highly unlikely. The toilets where he was alleged to have abused kids were tiny, child-sized spaces. Although the adult creche workers would go in there to assist small children in using the toilet, there was no room for them to hide and they could be easily seen by other employees inside the creche.
1:31:02 Speaker 00 A kitchen where he was thought to have committed crimes was equally difficult to access without witnesses. Plus, the seven complainants whose accusations resulted in his conviction had named 21 other children as either observers or participants. Yet, none of those 21 children ever confirmed any of the allegations. Peter Ellis and his supporters were hoping that these facts and others would help him find a way out of prison.
1:31:35 Speaker 00 In late July 1994, Peter appealed his conviction on the basis that none of the 21 children cited by complainants' witnesses ever verified the allegations. Representing Peter was barrister Graham Pankhurst QC, who argued that the guilty verdicts were unreasonable because the complainant's evidence wasn't credible. He pointed out all of the inconsistencies in the children's testimony and allegations. Pankhurst also argued that there had been a general miscarriage of justice. The trial judge had limited the videotaped evidence and allowed the jury to keep transcripts of the children's interviews that had been edited by the Crown.
1:32:18 Speaker 00 But shortly after the appeal began, it was abruptly paused due to a bombshell revelation. Zelda Cypress, the eldest of the complainants and widely seen as the most credible, had retracted her allegations. After learning that Peter was appealing his conviction, Zelda's mother had told her daughter that Peter was saying that the children had lied. To Miss Cypress's mind, it was further evidence that Peter Ellis was a bad person. But she noticed that when she told Zelda this, her daughter was silent. Zelda, who was now a pre-teen, said that she'd wanted to tell her mother the truth for a while, she was just waiting for the right opportunity.
1:33:03 Speaker 00 It finally presented itself after Zelda got into an argument with a friend at school, which led to the two girls' mothers having a heated phone conversation. The other girl's mother called Zelda a liar. After Miss Cypress hung up the phone, she had a heart-to-heart conversation with Zelda about the importance of telling the truth. Zelda grew visibly distressed and said: “I want to tell you about Peter, and they were lies.” According to Zelda, during her interviews, she had said the things she thought her mother had wanted to hear. The lies had started out small, but grew progressively bigger.
1:33:47 Speaker 00 Zelda wanted to share her retraction with the court to help Peter. Upon learning this news, Peter asked his lawyers: “Is she all right? Are her parents supporting her?”
1:34:02 Speaker 00 Although Zelda’s new testimony was entered into evidence, the appellate judges rejected her new statements. “Such retractions were common in child abuse cases,” they said. Zelda was most likely in denial and had convinced herself that she’d lied during the interviews as a way to remove the traumatic case from her life.
1:34:24 Speaker 00 Still, they quashed Peter Ellis’s three convictions that related to Zelda. They upheld all thirteen of his remaining convictions and his ten-year prison sentence.
1:34:37 Speaker 00 Since this date, Zelda Cypress has always maintained that she lied about Peter abusing her due to feeling pressure. She and her family say they were pressured by the police and the Crown Prosecutor in an unprofessional way, and said New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice has never contacted them about Zelda’s retraction.
1:35:00 Speaker 00 In February 1999, almost six years into his sentence, Peter Ellis became eligible for parole. Appearing before the parole board, Peter stated: “I would like to thank the board for the opportunity to appear here today. I cannot accept any parole that you could offer me, because the board can only release me as a guilty man. I am a human being, and of course I very much want my freedom, but I simply cannot accept it if it is to be given on the basis that I am a guilty man. I am not a guilty man. I am an innocent man.”
1:35:42 Speaker 00 In light of this statement, the parole board had no choice but to refuse parole.
1:35:49 Speaker 00 Five months later, Peter Ellis tried for a second appeal. The court found that while there was no certainty that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, some of the issues raised, such as the reliability of the children’s interviews and whether they might have been contaminated by parents’ questions, might benefit from a royal commission into the matter. A royal commission wasn't called, but in March 2000, New Zealand's then Minister of Justice established a ministerial inquiry into the conduct of the children's interviews. This was somewhat more limited in scope than a royal commission and wouldn't allow for witnesses to be compelled to testify or cross-examine anew.
1:36:34 Speaker 00 The inquiry would be led by Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, a judge who'd previously served as the Chief Justice of New Zealand. One year later, the Eichelbaum report was delivered. Sir Eichelbaum found that while the children's interviews hadn't been perfect, they were generally of good quality, especially for the time. In fact, New Zealand's interviewing approach for child victims in 1991 was sometimes ahead of overseas practices. While there were some weaknesses in the investigation, particularly regarding the way some parents had questioned their children too much, Sir Eichelbaum concluded this hadn't significantly
1:37:17 Speaker 00 affected the case's outcome. One international expert who assisted with the report found that the key complainants hadn't been seriously affected by contamination, that is, by hearing other children's stories via parents or general conversations that might have influenced their own statements. In conclusion, the inquiry did not find grounds to believe that Peter Ellis's convictions were unsafe and did not recommend a pardon. By this stage, Peter Ellis had completed his sentence. He was released from prison on Wednesday, February 2, 2000, and moved to a small beach
1:38:00 Speaker 00 community where his mother and sister resided. Although he had his freedom, he hadn't managed to clear his name, and that was something that he desperately wanted. He now had a number of high-profile supporters who were eager to help in his quest. In 2001, author Linley Hood published a book about the moral panic regarding ritual abuse in New Zealand, and Peter Ellis’s case in particular. In her book, Linley Hood coined a number of pseudonyms for complainants and their parents, which we have used throughout this episode. Titled “A City Possessed”, it was a comprehensive examination of the circumstances leading
1:38:44 Speaker 00 up to and including Peter’s trial, as well as the events that followed. As Hood described it, Christchurch was a city on the edge, primed for a case such as the Christchurch civic creche, with rumours of ritual abuse having steadily built throughout the city during the 1980s. “A city possessed” became highly acclaimed, winning the top prize for non-fiction and the Readers’ Choice Award at the 2002 New Zealand Book Awards. It won over new supporters for Peter Ellis, including the former leader of the New Zealand National Party, the country’s centre-right political party.
1:39:24 Speaker 00 A number of prominent journalists also spoke out in their support of Peter Ellis, including print journalist Martin Van Beinen, who sat through the entire trial, and Melanie Reid, the reporter who had put together the 60 Minutes story about a paedophile ring in Christchurch just weeks before allegations against Peter were first made. During the 2000s, the fight to acquit Peter Ellis continued. Between 2003 and 2014, there were three petitions for a royal commission into the case, though no royal commission was ever established.
1:40:04 Speaker 00 On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Peter Ellis lodged an appeal to New Zealand’s Supreme Court. He was now 61 years old and battling bladder cancer. His lawyers argued that evidence in the 1993 case was flawed, especially testimony from experts regarding children’s behaviour indicating abuse. Research about interviewing children that had emerged in the intervening years also raised concerns about the evidence used by The Crown.
1:40:37 Speaker 00 More than three years later, the Supreme Court reached a decision. It highlighted two main problems in the original trial. The testimony of Crown Witness Dr Karen Zellis had gone beyond what the law allowed when giving evidence that the children’s behaviours were consistent with sexual abuse. This evidence was deemed to be unbalanced, lacking alternative explanations for the children’s behaviour. The other issue was that the jury had not been properly informed of the risk of children’s memories or accounts having been contaminated by multiple interviews, questioning by parents, and discussions between the children.
1:41:20 Speaker 00 The court found that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, while emphasising that its judgement was not to be read as a criticism of the complainants, their parents, or those involved in the investigation and trial.
1:41:36 Speaker 00 On Friday, October 7, 2022, more than 30 years after Peter Ellis was first arrested, the court quashed all of his remaining convictions, clearing his name. Peter was not present for this long-awaited result. He had died three years earlier from terminal bladder cancer, less than two months after he’d filed his final bid for appeal. Ordinarily in New Zealand, courts have ruled that an individual’s interest in a judicial hearing ends if they die, putting a stop to any hearings in process. Given the exceptional nature of Peter Ellis’s case, the Supreme Court granted leave for
1:42:20 Speaker 00 his appeal to be heard despite his death, marking the first time that a New Zealand court had overturned a conviction posthumously.
1:42:29 Speaker 00 Peter’s mother, who had been his strongest and most steadfast supporter, did not live to see her son exonerated either. Lesley Ellis had died approximately one month before the Supreme Court delivered its ruling.
1:42:44 Speaker 00 Peter’s brother Mark and sister Tanya welcomed the news on their behalf, with Mark telling reporters outside the court: “We’re just proud of him. We’re just proud of the person he was. We never doubted he was innocent, and that was it.”
1:43:03 Speaker 00 The parents of the complainants had a very different reaction, releasing a statement to share their disappointment in the court's decision. It read in part: "The trauma of not being believed over the years takes its toll. The court of public opinion is often ill-informed and the facts are lost. Our children deserved to be safe in the care of adults. They were not."
1:43:34 Speaker 00 For the complainants and their families, the ongoing focus on the civic creche case was often re-traumatising. As public opinion swayed in favour of Peter Ellis, some individuals lost any trust they might have had in the media and felt totally silenced. In May 2022, as Peter Ellis's appeal was underway before the Supreme Court, a female complainant now aged in her 30s spoke to journalist Joe Malcolm about her suffering.
1:44:04 Speaker 00 She attended the creche from 18 months to five years old and said she still had many clear memories of Peter and how he made her feel.
1:44:14 Speaker 00 "Not being believed is very difficult, and I lean on the fact the courts have believed me and I get some reassurance from that. Disclosing was a scary and a vulnerable thing that I did somewhat reluctantly. It's certainly not my experience that I was led by my parents. We never ever discussed it, and it certainly wasn't discussed with each other as children as has been claimed. It was like an unwritten agreement. We didn't talk about it."
1:44:47 Speaker 00 This complainant told Joe Malcolm that the abuse continued to impact her as an adult, affecting her relationships and making her feel voiceless.
1:44:57 Speaker 00 In 2003, the complainant known as Bart Dogwood told the Dominion Post: "We were there. We know it happened. It's not easy to live with, but I could live with it if everyone didn't keep bringing it up all the time. The only closure I want is for Peter Ellis to admit he did it."
1:45:19 Speaker 00 Some people close to the case have wondered if some children who did disclose abuse had been sexually assaulted but by a person other than Peter Ellis. In the podcast series Delve by journalist Melanie Reed, Gaye Davidson, the Creche's supervisor, spoke of something troubling she saw while reviewing the children’s videotaped interviews. One girl who took part in six hour-long interviews and disclosed abuse by Peter seemed relaxed and disinterested when asked about the Creche. The interviewers then questioned her older brother, who had never attended the Creche, and he disclosed that he had been abused by an uncle.
1:46:02 Speaker 00 The interviewers brought the girl back in for a final 10-minute interview where they asked about her uncle. The girl sat frozen and spoke in a low voice as she disclosed that her uncle had abused her too. To Gaye Davidson, there was a stark difference between her relaxed demeanour in the Creche interviews and her scared one in this final conversation. According to Gaye’s recollection, the girl’s family opted against charging the uncle with anything as they didn’t want their child to be a multi-abuse victim. They chose to focus on the charges relating to abuse at the Creche instead.
1:46:43 Speaker 00 These complainants’ allegations against Peter Ellis were discharged at the trial. The four women who were charged alongside Peter had their lives permanently affected also, despite not being convicted. They had to leave careers they loved and give up working with children. They faced discrimination from members of the public, finding themselves shunned and judged despite having their charges dropped. The closure of the Creche impacted other employees too, as well as an entire community that depended on it. In March 1995, the four women and six other colleagues who also lost their jobs were awarded
1:47:26 Speaker 00 $1 million by the Employment Court for unjustified dismissal. This was later reduced to $80,000, which in some cases wasn’t enough to cover legal costs.
1:47:40 Speaker 00 Carol Evans was a Christchurch city councillor from 1986 until 2007, and was serving on the council at the time of Peter Ellis’s trial. In 2015, as debate was raging about the case once more, Carol called a local talkback radio show to share her personal regrets. At times, I was the city council representative on the Craysh Committee, and I just believed that he was innocent all the time. I met him, I knew him, I’d seen him in action. He was flamboyant, he was colourful, but I always believed he was innocent.
1:48:21 Speaker 00 When the radio host asked why she hadn’t spoken up at the time if she believed in Peter’s innocence, Carol replied: “Because we were told not to. I just felt, if I don’t ring now, I’m going to wear this guilt for the rest of my life.” Reflecting on what she would say to Peter Ellis if given the chance, Carol said: “I guess I’d say that I’m sorry on behalf of the city. It’s a pity that some of us didn’t speak out. I just have always felt sorry every time it raises its head. And I guess, the more you look at the case, it was just pure panic, pure conjecture,
1:49:06 Speaker 00 and people consolidated themselves one way or the other into two groups: those who believed, and those who didn’t.”
1:49:44 Speaker 01 OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of 5-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
Previous Case 340: Elisabeth Membrey Next Case 342: Julia Wallace Page updated October 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated